Kenneth Lonergan on structure

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Kenneth Lonergan on structure

    This whole offense to the word Amateur is stupid. There's a big difference between pro writing and amateur writing. So when discussing amateur work, what is one supposed to say? What's wrong with being an amateur at something? It doesn't have to stay that way if you work hard enough.

    I'm not overthinking anything figment. I'm debating. If you don't think a good grasp of structute can't improve your script, then we just disagree.

    Again, who is to judge if an idea is bad or a script crappy? Everyone thinks those things exist in the work of others but never theirs. That's part of the problem.

    Amateurs are those who do not get paid for their services. Since labels are arbitrary anyway let's call them something else. Potatoes, or balloon screenwriters.

    If you think it discredits me to try and observe the differences between balloon and pro screenwriting then I guess, oh well. I think it is very important to do.

    Comment


    • Re: Kenneth Lonergan on structure

      Originally posted by Cyfress View Post
      This whole offense to the word Amateur is stupid. There's a big difference between pro writing and amateur writing. So when discussing amateur work, what is one supposed to say? What's wrong with being an amateur at something? It doesn't have to stay that way if you work hard enough.

      I'm not overthinking anything figment. I'm debating. If you don't think a good grasp of structute can't improve your script, then we just disagree.

      Again, who is to judge if an idea is bad or a script crappy? Everyone thinks those things exist in the work of others but never theirs. That's part of the problem.

      Amateurs are those who do not get paid for their services. Since labels are arbitrary anyway let's call them something else. Potatoes, or balloon screenwriters.

      If you think it discredits me to try and observe the differences between balloon and pro screenwriting then I guess, oh well. I think it is very important to do.

      Sigh.

      Comment


      • Re: Kenneth Lonergan on structure

        You started this thread, SBDeb. Isn't there any way to pull the plug on this monster?

        No? Okay, then.

        I think your definition of a "pro writer" is pretty weak, Cyfress. If someone options an amateur screenwriter's script for a dollar, all of a sudden they move into the realm of professional screenwriter? I think that's ridiculous.

        I do agree, though, there's really nothing wrong with being an amateur. Except that you tend to throw the term around like it's shameful, and like all amateurs are to be painted with the same brush. It's like you're trying to bully people into using your development services.

        Put me down as...not a fan.

        Comment


        • Re: Kenneth Lonergan on structure

          Originally posted by Cyfress View Post
          This whole offense to the word Amateur is stupid. There's a big difference between pro writing and amateur writing.
          Amateur note-givers need to understand there is a big difference between pro and amateur notes, too.

          Comment


          • Re: Kenneth Lonergan on structure

            Well I write scripts for money (wga min on last project! Woohoo!) and I like 3 act structure a lot, along with Snyder beat sheets and 8 sequence theory and all of that prescriptive funny little things as much as a person wandering into a great unknown likes signposts. I assume that without them I would get where I wanted in the end, but boy are those methods reassuring.

            Comment


            • Re: Kenneth Lonergan on structure

              Skeptical at first, but finally convinced, I plugged the three-act structure into my newest script synopsis and... WOW!!!, who wants to buy it?!

              It's a Tragedy. (at least that's what I've been told)

              ACT I
              At a major university, Luke and Mindy meet. He's a caring, loving young man, who is just a little overly concerned with personal hygiene. She's crazy about him and they grow closer. But just as things become serious, she pulls away from him and he has no idea why. Finally he hounds her into revealing that...
              PLOT POINT I
              ...she's a hideous, alien, space monster, disguised as a human.
              ACT II
              He, is shocked -- enthralled -- mesmerized and still in love. He has only one question -- "Do hideous, alien, space monsters believe in a high level of personal hygiene?" She assures them that they do and that's the thing that most attracted her to him. One thing leads to another and she finally decides it's time for him to meet the family. A few thousand light years away the family waits for them at the space port and can't control their drooliness as they greet him. Luke is fascinated and oblivious to their hunger, but Mindy realizes right away that it was a terrible mistake to bring him here. At there home the family keeps trying to find ways of doing him in and Mindy keeps foiling their plots, until she comes up with a surefire lie to save his life. She convinces her family that Luke is infested with parasites. That kills their appetite and now they want him gone.
              MIDPOINT
              But when Luke learns of the lie, he has too much pride to allow them to think he's in any way unclean. His love for Mindy cools, for maligning him with such a heinous accusation. As he sets out to prove his cleanliness. The family throws him out and calls in the Hygineasizers to give their home a thorough cleaning. Mindy desperately wants to take him back to Earth and safety, but he hides from her and against all odds, after many misadventures, finally convinces a leading medical specialist from the most prestigious Hideous, Alien, Space Monster Institute to examine him and prove, once and for all, that he is indeed "parasite free". Then...
              PLOT POINT II
              ...he proudly appears at Mindy's home and shows the family his Certificate of Cleanliness.
              ACT III
              The hideous, alien, space, monster family sits around a large, dining room table. Mindy shrugs and asks her mother to pass a foot and the ketchup bottle.

              Hell, this is easy. With a three-act structure foundation, award winning screenplays (like this one) practically write themselves. I mean, obviously, I already had the "skills" -- I just needed the formula.

              Should I book my flight to LA now? Which studio or production company would give me the most for this? Could I have the money in my pocket by tomorrow, or would I have to wait until next week?

              Oh, and I have a million of 'em, each one better than the others.
              "I just couldn't live in a world without me."

              Comment


              • Re: Kenneth Lonergan on structure

                I am a professional Note giver Figment. I am getting paid for it. That's ok, figment. You take your shots. Unlike most people here it doesn't bother me. Funny, I remember reading your script and I remember you being very rigid and not wanting to change a thing. Another quality of an 'amateur'.

                Does a dollar option make you a pro screenwriter? It's a gray area. Personally I would say no. The $1 option is something that happens when producers want to test the waters to see if the can get funding together.

                This is why people overthink it. Just because you have 3 acts it means nothing. Just because you have an inciting incident it means nothing. They have to be quality events. That's why they are not rules.

                There was a poster on this thread that was a reader at an agency and they said to stray from basic story principles at your own risk. You have a good chance to come out with dreck. That person has read enough to know that. I also have read enough to know it. Maybe you guys haven't yet.

                In every other industry or art form you master the basic principles first. Then you go off road and create unique pieces of art. However, in screenwriting it doesn't seem to hold true.

                Comment


                • Re: Kenneth Lonergan on structure

                  Originally posted by Cyfress View Post
                  I am a professional Note giver Figment. I am getting paid for it. That's ok, figment. You take your shots. Unlike most people here it doesn't bother me. Funny, I remember reading your script and I remember you being very rigid and not wanting to change a thing. Another quality of an 'amateur'.
                  "Professional" -- according to you -- means you are getting paid by a studio or production company. You don't. That means you are an amateur. Does that bother you? Why? You seem fond of the word.

                  Re: my script from years ago that I sent you -- that is INSANLY untrue. I actually believe in 3 act structure. I use it. Never have I stated otherwise. And you must not remember reading my script very well, because, having sent you a script I knew sucked, you told me it sucked, and I thanked you profusely for reading it.

                  So you are literally outright lying right now.

                  Honestly, dude, quit while you are ahead. Do you think this is good for your business, slamming everyone because they are amateurs, when you are also an amateur?
                  Last edited by figment; 03-13-2017, 04:02 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Kenneth Lonergan on structure

                    Does anyone know why countless books are written on how to write a screenplay using the three act structure and few if any on how to write an alternate structure screenplay?

                    I think the three act structure may be easier to teach.
                    Last edited by jonpiper; 03-13-2017, 04:50 PM. Reason: add a reason

                    Comment


                    • Re: Kenneth Lonergan on structure

                      A professional is someone who gets paid for their services, not someone who gets paid for their services by a studio. Why do I make you so uncomfortable?

                      Slamming people? You better go back and reread the thread. The M.O. Here is that I join or start a discussion. I stay on topic and actually enjoy a healthy debate and then people like you and Kid44 take personal shots at me. That's ok. It doesn't bother me. I would need to really respect your knowledge on the craft for it to irritate me, and like I said, it doesn't bother me. I was nice to you. I was nice in the way I offered notes on your script.

                      You and I must remember things differently. I would never use the word 'sucks' when offering notes. I also never mentioned the 3 act structure to you nor do I refer to it with any other writer I work with. You were rigid. You are lying. You defended story choices that did not work on the page sighting that making those changes would force you to make others that you did not want to make.

                      You better quit while you are behind.

                      I'm not worried about you or anyone else slamming me or my services.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Kenneth Lonergan on structure

                        Looks like the thread has almost run its course but we try not to stifle discussion.

                        Please feel free to discuss opinions on story structure but without any personalized arguments, thanks.
                        "Friends make the worst enemies." Frank Underwood

                        Comment


                        • Re: Kenneth Lonergan on structure

                          I'll bow out, Dave. Probably make things run more smoothly.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Kenneth Lonergan on structure

                            I actually agree with a lot of things Cyfress says about the three-act structure.

                            It's the way he says it that I don't agree with.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Kenneth Lonergan on structure

                              if structure is represented by say finding your way to get to the top of a mountain in a compelling way that works, then to me, like the old saying says, there are all kinds of paths to get to the top of the mountain. and of course there will be a very wide, well-tramped, blazed trail, marked with signs, you can buy a guidebook, hire a guide, etc, to help tell you when you're gonna go alongside a cliff and the grizzly bear will come charging, you need a big storm to brew up, etc, or you need to stop running and rest for a minute, etc. all of that is great, etc. whatever works, works.

                              some may decide to take the less traveled path through the brambles, etc, some may even decide to try to parachute to the top of the mountain rather than climb it. fall into the story, not focusing at all on climbing it in the proper manner.

                              i don't know crap but think story structure is something fairly intuitive. we've all read, watched and heard gazillions of stories. jesus told them rather than lecture, etc. if you've climbed that mountain or parachuted in, and there is no big deal and satisfaction in getting 'there,' then if it's me, i've not found it. may not have even been on the right mountain. it may be way over yonder in the twilights.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Kenneth Lonergan on structure

                                Originally posted by jonpiper View Post
                                Does anyone know why countless books are written on how to write a screenplay using the three act structure and few if any on how to write an alternate structure screenplay?

                                I think the three act structure may be easier to teach.
                                Of course it's easier to teach; it's simplistic and reductive.

                                Off the top of my head, I'd say there are four reasons why the 3-act system is the most popular paradigm:
                                1. It's simple. Break up your one story into three parts with the middle part being roughly 40%-50% of the story and the other two being roughly equal, but the first part is probably a bit longer than the third. Apply a few basic storytelling techniques, and bingo!, you're a screenwriter, or an exec or producer who now believes that screenplays are simple.
                                2. It came along at the right (write?) time. When Lethal Weapon created a bidding war (1986) and set off a feeding frenzy for spec scripts, Syd Field's Screenplay was one of the only screenwriting books available. It was easy to understand, especially for non-writers who needed to read all those specs making the rounds.
                                3. Alternate structures are hard. They tend to reflect the more accurate and complex nature of feature length movies. The people who come up with them use them, and don't have the time to write books or teach seminars because they're too busy writing. Plus, it's probably impossible at this point to convince people they work better than the 3-act system because...
                                4. It's a security blanket. Dev Execs and producers don't have time to learn anything new, and they certainly don't have the time or possibly the story smarts to grasp something more complex than three parts and five storytelling techniques.

                                  Novice writers don't want to let go of the 3-act system because it's comfortable, it's the first thing they learned, and it makes them feel like they have a pretty good bead on this whole screenwriting thing, apart from not being able to write scripts that sell or garner interest.

                                  The problem with security blankets is that all they do is make the user feel better. It doesn't protect them from danger. It rarely is good at keeping the user warm because after one good roll the blanket is off to the side. Sure it's warm, and familiar, and it smells and feels right, but it's a false sense of security, which is why you rarely see security blankets in college dorms.

                                I'd also like to address the Hero Myth. Joseph Campbell's Hero With A Thousand Faces should be required reading, especially if you want to write quest stories. Vogler sanitized it in his The Writer's Journey, and adapted it to screenwriting by aligning it with the 3-act system. The thing is that Campbell was talking about myths and folktales, not novels, plays, or films. A myth or folktale can usually easily be told in 15 minutes because they deal with one story and only a few characters. Also they tend to use stock or known characters so there's no real need for introductions.
                                Last edited by KitchonaSteve; 03-13-2017, 10:48 PM. Reason: Lethal Weapon date
                                Just my 2 cents, your mileage may vary.

                                -Steve Trautmann
                                3rd & Fairfax: The WGAW Podcast

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X